This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jon & Kate Plus 8 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jon & Kate Plus 8. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jon & Kate Plus 8 at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on April 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
In other news, this talk page is waaaaaaay too long. There are some discussions that haven't had any activity since last year! :O I would say that anything that hasn't had any activity since March should be archived and anything that has had activity in April or later be kept. From eyeballing the page, that would take out 1/3-1/2 of the length of this page. What say you? -- 13 2 19:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Are we still moving towards archiving this talk page? It looks like it was started, but still some old discussions remain. Cactusjump ( talk) 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to delete this line: "The couple has denied these allegations, saying the woman Jon left with was a long-time friend.[8][9] " I can't recall Kate ever claiming the woman was a friend of the family. Though I'm sure Jon may have said it. But the line should be removed because both links do not talk about it. One is down and the other has nothing to do with the couple claiming she is a friend. I'll delete unless there is an argument about it. 76.112.196.104 ( talk) 14:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Because I believe there is now a general consensus, with wikiwikid, KASchmidt, myself, VegaDark, Honeymane, and several other editors moving for inclusion, having stated their grounds, in accordance with the common interpretation of the rules, and having listed a number of reliable sources, and with only SCjessey still being flatly against inclusion of the information, with 13 seeming to have objected mainly to wording and citation issues and WP:Crystal, it should come in.
Here is a piece confirming that Jon has had an affair, http://www.usmagazine.com/news/jon-and-kate-dads-three-month-affair-confirmed-200955
Here is a video of Jon leaving the woman's house, http://www.usmagazine.com/news/see-jon-and-kate-dad-sneaking-out-of-mistress-home-200955
Here is a link confirming that it will be discussed on the show, http://www.tvguide.com/News/Jon-Kate-Plus-1005820.aspx
Here is a transcript of the coverage on CNN, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/01/sbt.01.html
In Canadian Print, http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Kate+plus+plus+hangover+plus+paparazzi+equals+divorce/1550666/story.html
And identifying the other woman, in Canadian Print, http://www.vancouversun.com/Kate+plus+Mystery+woman+revealed/1565467/story.html
Here is my proposed wording, to be added to the "Family History," section.
"In April of 2009, it came to public knowledge[cite, CNN transcript] that Jon was unhappy in his marriage to Kate.[cite, May 11 issue of US Weekly, pages 50-55, quoting family members and coworkers.] Uncomfortable with "life in the fishbowl,"[cite, Vancouver Sun link 1] he began an affair with a woman named Deanna Hummel in January of that year.[cite, USWeekly link 1] While Kate Gosselin has publically denied that Jon Gosselin was having an affair, this information was confirmed by relatives of Ms. Hummel as well as video footage of Jon leaving the woman's house. [cite, USWeekly link 2, which is a video.]
Feel free to shift things around and add more citations, I feel this is a nice, short, neutral VP summary of verifiable information coming from reliable sources. I am not going to rehash the discussions we have each had, since I feel those points have been debated and decided in favor of inclusion.
Pink-thunderbolt (
talk)
19:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
More information has been printed in reliable sources, so I am incorporating the references. Pink-thunderbolt ( talk) 22:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
How can any of this be listed as "Affair" if sourced from tabloids and is being trumped by the Sister who states that there is a contract from Kate to Jon, stating that Jon must oblige his duties to continue filming and promoting the show/the Gosling 10 or whatever their LLC is. Plus in stated contract was the ability for Jon to date whomever he chooses and the marriage is over. More so could any of this be listed under any title of Affair when if such a contract exist and is worded in that, that Jon can date whomever he chooses, does it not become an "Open Marriage" and therefor an affair is not really applicable?-- here is the link to source? http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/05/exclusive-new-interview-jon-kates-secret-marriage-contract —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.135.2 ( talk) 20:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You cannot state that "he began having an affair with a woman named Deanna Hummel in January of that year" - you have to state it as rumour, since the rumours are verified, but the facts aren't. There are clear photos of Jon in situations that illustrate his poor choices; most likely he had an affair or was close to consummating it. But there is no reliable evidence that they actually did consummate it. Deanna's brother is a source, but he is angry at her and is an unsavourable character (Canadian spelling), so we can't rely on him. And really, even if they signed up for being in a fishbowl when they started their reality TV show, I don't think it's fair for the scrutiny to be as intense as it is. I hope it doesn't last too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.48.224 ( talk) 22:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? Where does it confirm there was an affair? From all that's been provided that's what the tabloid states as a rumor. There is no evidence, nor correlation even to promote such a theory. Jon went to a party, and got a ride with a female friend. Please tell me where this is stated differently. Wikipedia should hold itself up to higher standards than wild blind speculation. -- 76.166.97.51 ( talk) 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, if I'm not mistaken, Joel was born before Leah. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.124.31 ( talk) 19:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm almost positive the birth order listed is correct. Jon and Kate have said several times on the show that Leah is the youngest girl, but Joel is the "youngest youngest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.210.130 ( talk) 18:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Ive seen Jon and Kate try to be excellent parents who love and are devoted to their children. I'd like to see more of them respecting one another and be just as devoted to one another, too. From my own observations, Kate has issues with being respectful to her husband, and giving herself honor by honoring him. And Jon sits back and takes any kind of insult as if it were just any old thing, and it chips away from his character. After having been married for nearing 25 years, and having 7 children ourselves, I understand the pressures and stresses of life, but you cannot disrespect each other in such a way and have a healthy marriage for very long. I certainly wish them the best though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.130.182 ( talk) 01:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
ratings: The season five premiere of Jon and Kate Plus 8 delivered the best ratings in the series' history Monday, drawing 9.8 million total viewers, including 4.3 million in TLC’s target W18-49 demo.
The premiere also delivered the highest ratings in TLC history among W18-34 (9.1), M18-34 (3.6), and P18-34 (6.3).
The previous record holder was the season four finale, which aired March 23, 2009 and drew just over 4.6 million viewers, including 2.07 million W18-49. The premiere ratings were higher than anything on television Monday night, beating all of the broadcast networks. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.105.27 ( talk) 12:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
well you obviously are mistaken because Joel is the last! The kids' birth order is Cara, Mady, Alexis, Hannah, Aaden,Collin,Leah, and Joel... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.134.72 ( talk) 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a growing number of people who are concerned that the children in this family are being used as a source of income.
The realization that children who are featured in Reality TV Programs are not afforded the same protection as child actors, has ignited a push to bring forward those protections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.2.85 ( talk) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It is also broadcast in Canada, dubbed in French, on Canal Vie, as "8 à la maison". See (in French) http://www.canalvie.com/emission/8-a-la-maison/
The infobox can be updated.
70.29.208.129 ( talk) 09:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think this would be a controversial addition to the article, but since User:R7604 has reverted my edit twice... Is there a reason why we can't have a See Also section that links to the Kate Gosselin page? Cactusjump ( talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the edit was reverted again by User:R7604. I don't want to edit war, so if anyone else has an opinion, they can put it here. Cactusjump ( talk) 21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Per Wikipedia:Layout re. "See Also" sections: "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Cactusjump ( talk) 21:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
← From WP:3O - The purpose of the See also section is to link to related topics which are not already discussed in the article. If it is not restricted, in many articles it quickly balloons past the point of being useful to the reader. A better option is to add the |starring= parameter to the {{ Infobox television}} at the start of the article; I note that there is also a |list_episodes parameter which could be added. If there is a whole family of related articles, it might also be useful to add a navigation box sorting these to the bottom of each article in the family. An example using both of these solutions may be seen at Squidbillies. If you would like me to set up either or both, please ping my talkpage. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
so, this article says something about there being six sacs with seven embryos when kate was pregnant with the sextuplets. Are any of the sextuplets indentical? and I'm assuming one of the babies died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.44.145 ( talk) 16:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Please refer to release dates of show. Following certain regions (bottom part of the article) its not Cananda but CANADA if you are referring to the country pretty bad typo
Youre Welcome...I dont see anything else so far
In the future, if you see a typo, just FIX IT. Discussion is not necessary. DFS ( talk) 12:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've seen this changed every day at least three or four times. Can anyone verify if they purchased or adopted the dogs (with a source) so that it's not edited hourly? Cactusjump ( talk) 19:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to see we tamed fire, conquered space and the atom, and invented Wikipedia so we can talk, verifiably, about someone's dogs. Drmies ( talk) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20286254,00.html
This is not a confirmation but an early "heads up" that it was anounced here first. Whether they announce it on the show or not, its being reported so I'm adding it to this talk page. Mwarriorjsj7 ( talk) 00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
http://brokencontrollers.com/jon-and-kate-plus-8-not-plus-divorce-t1651458.php -- M42380 ( talk) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
further, the show (and the cited sources) specifically said that the legal filings were to disolve the marriage. so you are incorrect. we DO know what the filings were for (according to verifiable, reliable sources). you're fighting a losing (and incorrect) fight here, buddy. Wikiwikikid ( talk) 16:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) http://www.nj.com/entertainment/celebrities/index.ssf/2009/06/jon_and_kate_plus_eight_produc.html Production on the show has been suspended C3pjo ( talk) 15:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Eh. It says, "The show has been canceled." Not the right wording lol Mwarriorjsj7 ( talk) 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Typo error under section "Production"Under "Production" in the second sentence of it says "Jon & Kate Plus Ei8ht is filmed three days...". 'Ei8ht' needs to be changed to '8'.
I do not see any problem with the neutrality of this article, so I will remove the tag for that. Am I completely blind? Bearian ( talk) 15:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The 'family history' section goes from birth of the sextuplets right to 2009 allegations of infidelity. Is there really nothing to say about the period in between, like, when they decided to appear on a reality show? DJ Clayworth ( talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned this on the Kate talk page, but is there a reason why Jon's accusations of an affair are included, but not Kate's? Both have been vehemently denied, yet only Jon's extra-marital allegations remain here. I believe to be fair, both allegations should be included, or none at all. Cactusjump ( talk) 23:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
So if you are going to include one, I guess you should include the other.
the only thing is that you can not go by what a brother says. he has been to jail and has had his own isssues. he is probably just doing this for the publicity. now the thing is that kate, well they have no prof of her cheating where jon they do. the main thing that was out there was the other women sunbathig on there front yard while kate was away. that is just to much to be friends. now for kate just because there is a body graund in the picture does not mean that they hace cheated. please just get over it about kate jon did the wrong thingh and there is proof.-- Beachbabe0517 ( talk) 20:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(undent)Since no one has put forth a valid argument since June 25, I added a short couple sentences about Kate being accused of cheating, as well as her denial -- both cited. If people feel this should be erased, then Jon's accusations of cheating should also be erased to give equal weight to the issues. Cactusjump ( talk) 18:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
"is a eality television"
This is missing the "r" in "reality"
-- Out There Live ( talk) 01:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Since the next episode that airs June 29 is a recap show, doesn't that make them on hiatus from filming from now until August? Cactusjump ( talk) 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Under family history, it currently says "The couple have denied these allegations" but shouldn't it say "The couple has denied..."? It is referring to a singular group. Kylel2005 ( talk) 14:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The DVD multimedia chart near the bottom of the page is incorrect. The release dates were the same in the US and Canada, with certain States and Provinces getting it later. (Alaska, Hawaii, Northwest Territories) Having (Canada) after a list of 3 dates is misleading and just plain unnecessary. Also it's not referenced, and the link to the DVD regions have been removed. I tried to change it a few times and was verbally attacked by the chart creator. lol
If it's unreferenced and incorrect it should be changed to show just the one date for Region 1. Any comments/concerns ? -- PhilthyBear ( talk) 17:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Because Canada has NOT gotten the DVDs on the same dates as the U.S. This can be confirmed at Amazon.ca or TVShowsOnDVD. If you look at other shows, you'll see that they list two dates for the same region but the second one has a different country listed in brackets.
Also why do you need to link Region 1 or any regions for that matter? People know the regions the DVDs are meant for by now. If not then they've been living under a rock. It's not necessary, to state the obvious. R7604 ( talk) 03:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you ever stop to think that Amazon doesnt receive stock of every DVD, Book, CD on its original release date ? The release date is probably the day it was released on Amazon for purchase. The three dates needs to be changed.
And I would say most people are unaware that their are "DVD regions". Deleting the link is counter productive--
PhilthyBear (
talk)
23:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't get my message to your reply. Check Amazon.ca, check Chapters/Indigo, both of these will say the same thing, Canada got the DVDs on a different date!! Chapter/Indigo has them in store too. The dates are correct for Canada!!
If "most people" are "unaware" of the DVD region codes, by now, then they have apparently been living under that rock. I refuse treat people like they have nothing between their ears. DVDs have been around for a while now, (late 90s) and everyone knows which region is which. If not, they can look it up, that's what Google was created for. A person using the internet and even this site, definately knows the regions codes as far as DVDs are concerned.
Not to mention the fact that when I first created the "chart" for the DVDs, no one was concerned with either the dates (which are correct) or linking the codes. So why after almsot three months, is there a sudden need to change everything?
Here's the other thing, Season 4, Volume 2, does have the same release date in all of North America. If Canada was supposedly getting the previous DVDs at the same time as the U.S. then why is Amazon.ca & Chatpers/Indigo are listing a matching date only now? Btw it's not "some Provinces" that were getting a different date, it was all of Canada. Why on earth you would think some Provinces are different from others, I don't know. As for the U.S., you'd have to ask someone from Alaska and Hawaii, for proof about those two States, since, PhilthyBear, you and I both live in Canada. R7604 ( talk) 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Once again I think online stores get their stock after it goes on sale. But even if ALL of Canada gets it 1 month later than the US, putting (canada) after 3 dates is confusing and it crowds the chart. And the "Region 1" link should be restored. -- PhilthyBear ( talk) 12:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, when sourcing stuff, try to avoid articles from MSNBC. They take them off of their site so fast that at least one of the sources we were using was already defunct, despite the fact that these allegations surfaced a mere two months ago. If you can, please try to find a duplicate article on another site and use that instead. Also, if there are any other MSNBC articles being used as sources, please help find replacements for them. Thanks! -- 13 2 00:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused...Why would there be a question on the article's neutrality placed on the Criticism section? I believe it to be written neutrally, as it presents the criticism that exists, and how Jon and Kate and TLC have responded. The link from the tag goes to a short essay that basically says "Sometimes you should have a Criticism section, and sometimes not." So then what's the point of the tag? Cactusjump ( talk) 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Logo of the show indicates that the number is spelled out ("Eight") and not the single digit value ("8"). Article is locked so I can't edit it and it needs to be edited numerous times throughout the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoudFlatulence ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I also wondered why it's not "Ei8ht" since that's how I see it on TLC's site. http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/jon-and-kate/jon-and-kate.html I think it should be words not the number except to replace the letter "g". R7604 ( talk) 17:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that a certain editor ( R7604) has some sort of dispute over adding the kids ages to the chart. Why shouldn't this be allowed? 18 Kids and Counting (AKA Duggar Family) has all of their kids listed, and they have two sets of twins as well. Not everyone actually knows the kids birthdays, and I think that it would be great to just keep that in the article. By the way, s/he said that the sextuplets had turned one in the first season; nope, they turned three (they were born 2004; first season debuted 2007). ★ Dasani★ 00:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've protected the page. Please use the talk page to get consensus for changes. Tom Harrison Talk 13:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
With a clear consensus below for the later version here, the page is unlocked. Tom Harrison Talk 00:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Besides the points raised by Philthybear in the above section, here are the reasons that I keep reverting R7604's channges:
As you can see, my issues with it have nothing to do with the actual information (though I think someone may have brought it up elsewhere). My issues are 100% consensus, internal link, and style. It'd be nice, R, if you'd stop making assumptions about why I, and others, are changing this. -- 13 2 13:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope you're happy, my choice was to have accurate information but apparently not. Now all that is listed is an online release date through Discover's website. I did say I would delete it since no one liked all of my work to look up the dates and later on create a table for them. Interesting how three months later, after I created the table, everyone jumps in and say I'm wrong and useless. Nice to know I'm apprecidated and no I'm not leaving this site, just because you people don't like my work I did for the DVDs. I'd like to know why no one else bother putting the information for release dates or a table before me? R7604 ( talk) 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I will say this for the last time (I hope) and maybe you people will both read it and understand. Canada did NOT get the DVDs for Seasons 1-3 or S4V1 at the same time as the U.S. If we did, I wouldn't have been looking around for it. It happens, sometimes, that Canadians get DVDs for some shows at a later date. Want irony? Degrassi: TNG is a Canadian show and the first couple of seasons were released later on in Canada.
Another thing, other shows have more then one release date for the same reason, so there's no reason why this show can't too. What shows? Gossip Girl for one.... Look around I've seen a few shows that same thing as I do.
And what's with putting back all the old references I've removed over the past year?
One last thing, since you don't read my notes when editing, go to Amazon UK and type in Jon & Kate Plus Eight, there you'll find 'ALL information, like I did. I don't know why no one else did that instead of putting "citation needed". R7604 ( talk) 20:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Now there seems to be an issue with using regions or countries for release. I think since DVD's are generally released per region (although some countries may have a delayed release) we really should be using Regions. And it wouldn't be incorrect to have only one release for each region; taking a leaf from WP:FilmRelease, the first release date for each region should be noted. BOVINEBOY2008 16:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Get your spelling straight. There is NO apostraphe in DVDs. It's plural "s" not possesive "s". Why the heck are you against mentiong that the dates you have for the U.S. and U.K. only and at that, why delete the Season 4, Volume 1 date for the U.K.?
Another thing, why bring up Amazon? I'ved used other Canadian sites and the fact that these DVDs were not available in Canada.
I still have not received a straight answer to any of my questions. I originally added three dates to this table for Region 1 and for the past month everyone's against it. Why now? Why remove any mention about Canada? Why is it other shows have two release dates for the same region, yet everyone objects to it being this why for this show?
Instead I get a lot of the same useless answers about the way things are done, the rules etc.... Does anyone give or get straight answers around here? R7604 ( talk) 04:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well Thirteen two; what's your for UK dates? Interesting how Amazon UK is good enough for previous releases but not for Season 4, Volume 1. I never used it for Canada, just the UK and I thought I was discussing a mention about Canada but apparently not.
The only "straight answers" I've been given is basically that you guys think the U.S. should be the only country listed. Nice. You could block me but I'll just keep coming back until Canada is mentioned somewhere, somehow. I created the table but you guys act like you did.
I can't seem to get any of you to compromise, at all. Pretty sad. R7604 ( talk) 15:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Per the discussion at the top, I've archived everything that was stale or resolved (essentially anything without replies in July). This page is still really long though. :( -- 13 2 20:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Since John and Kate have decided to move, and both no longer stay exclusively in PA, should their new addresses be added to their location? Jon is in NY and recently Kate decided to move next door to me in MD. Mwarriorjsj7 ( talk) 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Please don't get ahead of ourselves here, all right? Yes, Jon isn't going to star on the show and yes, the show's title is changing. However, this will all be occurring in the future. Until the first episode airs with the new name, this article has to stay at this location. We also need to continue using any verbs connected with Jon's appearance on the show in present tense until the change actually takes place as he is still currently a star on the show and not a guest...not yet anyway. Thanks. -- 13 2 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose that we do not use wording such as "and soon to be Kate Plus Eight" in the lead sentence or, for that matter, anywhere in the article. The article should absolutely make mention of the fact that TLC announced the name change but there is enough ongoing litigation that it cannot be known for certain that a show titled Kate Plus Eight will ever be filmed and broadcast. TLC has publicly announced that filming has been suspended "pending further conversations between both parents". The wording in the article should be limited to the announcement of a name change and the explanation of its surrounding factors. This should be included in the lead paragraph but not the lead sentence. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
{{Editprotected}} The line:
| show_name_2 = '''Jon & Kate Plus 8'''
needs to be removed from the infobox, as it is identical to the show_name
parameter. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
02:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Please fix the end of the first section, where there is a run-on sentence. Specifically, "The producers are in talks with the parents" should be its own sentence, not a phrase jammed onto the end of the preceding one. |MSK ( talk) 14:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please update the episode count to 109 and continue to do so until the page is unlocked again, every week? Thanks. TH43 ( talk) 05:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
People article, Another People article, this one picked up by CNN. Time to call it? — NRen2k5( TALK), 05:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Given that the page is being bombarded with insertions of series ending, I think this needs to be said. First of all, nothing about the series ending can be included without a cited reliable source. Gossip sites are not reliable.
Which brings me to my second point. We need a source straight from the horse's mouth. In other words, we need a cited source, from TLC, saying the series is ending. Why? Because all of these tabloids are releasing information that directly goes against what TLC themselves have said (that is, suspending filming, talking it over with the parents and dealing with the court stuff, running a few specials in the meantime, and possibly picking up filming at a later date).
On a similar note. If they do end the series, the intro sentence will never be "Jon & Kate Plus 8 was..." and will, instead, always be "Jon & Kate Plus 8 is..." per WP:MOSTV. The reason this is is because the series has not ceased to exist, new episodes just aren't being made. It doesn't just disappear and since it's not a living thing, it can't die. Thanks for your cooperation through this chaotic time. -- 13 2 23:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
There was a commercial on TLC after the episode last week (Nov. 16th) that said the next episode would be the series finale. This article says the finale was announced on the 20th, but it was actually announced before this date. 4.167.171.241 ( talk) 09:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Some Gosselin-related Wikipedia articles erroneously had the word "Surviving" in the title of the second hour-long special, but it's simply titled "Sextuplets and Twins: One Year Later" according to production company Figure 8 Films' official site (it's on the sidebar) and, more importantly, the show's title card (it's at 1:43). I've corrected it on this article, as well as on Jon and Kate's articles. - sesu PRIME 01:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Description | Title | Redundant clarification! |
---|---|---|
1st hour-long special | Surviving Sextuplets and Twins | DOES contain "Surviving" |
2nd hour-long special | Sextuplets and Twins: One Year Later | does NOT contain "Surviving" |
Whats does the divorce paragraph have to do with the show? There a huge section of it yet it has nothing to do with the show. Neither does the show mention it. The show and their personal life are separate. If the show doesn't mention it, its useless to write a full paragraph on their divorce instead of just adding a brief overview in the Family History. You could add the show was canceled because of the fallout of Jon's infidelity, but their divorce came after the cancellation.
Being an obsessive fan of Jon and Kate plus 8 doesn't mean you write useless stuff on their pages. Example: "TLC announced that it would like to do "a series of specials" if the new series does not go into production"
That's real great news to you fans but useless when it comes to wiki seeing as this isn't an update forum. Unless you want to add, "TLC has done a show and a series of specials on the Gosselin family" there's no relevance to "TLC announced that it would like to do "a series of specials" if the new series does not go into production."
Also, the front page needs cleaning up. Example: "The show originally aired on Discovery Health, but then aired on TLC for Seasons 3-5."
"and then" would be a better fit. And the show never aired on Discovery Health. They had 2 specials on the Gosselin family. The show began on TLC.
Criticism section need updating(if you haven't noticed the label on it since July). Besides the non-neutral viewpoint, you don't use present tense when dealing with what happened in the past. Ex: "Kate defends her position that the children are happy and healthy, and not in any danger. In addition, Jon has stated that they are "in talks" regarding ensuring the children's happiness..."
The first paragraph should be explained as a statement given by the state as an answer to address the criticism, instead of just adding it as if to explain away the criticism and defend the Gosselin's. Mwarriorjsj7 ( talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL, I didn't realize this was a very, very old message and the user is banned/blocked. Oops. Heh. :P -- 13 2 05:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the show being staged? There have been several reports, and reliable ones at that: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30932161 seems like maybe fans or TLC is working to keep this info out of the article 207.81.141.208 ( talk) 18:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the last episode of Kate Plus Eight will be on September 12th, 2011.
According to people.com, the series was cancelled.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20518349,00.html
-- 99.108.248.29 ( talk) 19:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)HypoAllergenicJin
It seems to me (and I'm sure there are reasons some would disagree), that the show having been cancelled, that this article should be moved back to Jon & Kate Plus 8. Why? Because it aired far longer, and had far more episodes, with the former title, and thus is likely how most people think of the show. 98.71.223.130 ( talk) 12:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Kate Plus 8 → Jon & Kate Plus 8 – Jon & Kate Plus 8 aired five seasons, while Kate Plus 8 aired two. The former title is much more notable than the latter, as it was the name the series used for the majority of its run. 68DANNY2 ( talk) 17:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The article, Kate Plus Eight: Sextuplets Turn 10 should redirect here or not? For knowing about the article and its last situation, you can go through this link [2]. I have came here only after I followed a request from other editor, who had posted a request for deletion on my talk page, as well as the talk page of Materialscientist. OccultZone ( Talk) 02:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Number 5 7 17:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Jon & Kate Plus 8 → Kate Plus 8 – This is the current title of the series. As seen above, this move was rejected previously, but consensus can change; a similar situation happened here. --Relisted. — Amakuru ( talk) 12:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
{{ Jon & Kate Plus 8}} has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Kate Plus 8. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Kate Plus 8. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The series completed its run five years ago. It's remembered mostly for its earliest seasons, in which it was most popular, and which it was known as Jon & Kate Plus 8. This decision is based on Google News results, in relation to the sextuplets' 18th birthday. -- Zanimum ( talk) 01:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jon & Kate Plus 8 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jon & Kate Plus 8. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jon & Kate Plus 8 at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on April 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
In other news, this talk page is waaaaaaay too long. There are some discussions that haven't had any activity since last year! :O I would say that anything that hasn't had any activity since March should be archived and anything that has had activity in April or later be kept. From eyeballing the page, that would take out 1/3-1/2 of the length of this page. What say you? -- 13 2 19:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Are we still moving towards archiving this talk page? It looks like it was started, but still some old discussions remain. Cactusjump ( talk) 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to delete this line: "The couple has denied these allegations, saying the woman Jon left with was a long-time friend.[8][9] " I can't recall Kate ever claiming the woman was a friend of the family. Though I'm sure Jon may have said it. But the line should be removed because both links do not talk about it. One is down and the other has nothing to do with the couple claiming she is a friend. I'll delete unless there is an argument about it. 76.112.196.104 ( talk) 14:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Because I believe there is now a general consensus, with wikiwikid, KASchmidt, myself, VegaDark, Honeymane, and several other editors moving for inclusion, having stated their grounds, in accordance with the common interpretation of the rules, and having listed a number of reliable sources, and with only SCjessey still being flatly against inclusion of the information, with 13 seeming to have objected mainly to wording and citation issues and WP:Crystal, it should come in.
Here is a piece confirming that Jon has had an affair, http://www.usmagazine.com/news/jon-and-kate-dads-three-month-affair-confirmed-200955
Here is a video of Jon leaving the woman's house, http://www.usmagazine.com/news/see-jon-and-kate-dad-sneaking-out-of-mistress-home-200955
Here is a link confirming that it will be discussed on the show, http://www.tvguide.com/News/Jon-Kate-Plus-1005820.aspx
Here is a transcript of the coverage on CNN, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/01/sbt.01.html
In Canadian Print, http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Kate+plus+plus+hangover+plus+paparazzi+equals+divorce/1550666/story.html
And identifying the other woman, in Canadian Print, http://www.vancouversun.com/Kate+plus+Mystery+woman+revealed/1565467/story.html
Here is my proposed wording, to be added to the "Family History," section.
"In April of 2009, it came to public knowledge[cite, CNN transcript] that Jon was unhappy in his marriage to Kate.[cite, May 11 issue of US Weekly, pages 50-55, quoting family members and coworkers.] Uncomfortable with "life in the fishbowl,"[cite, Vancouver Sun link 1] he began an affair with a woman named Deanna Hummel in January of that year.[cite, USWeekly link 1] While Kate Gosselin has publically denied that Jon Gosselin was having an affair, this information was confirmed by relatives of Ms. Hummel as well as video footage of Jon leaving the woman's house. [cite, USWeekly link 2, which is a video.]
Feel free to shift things around and add more citations, I feel this is a nice, short, neutral VP summary of verifiable information coming from reliable sources. I am not going to rehash the discussions we have each had, since I feel those points have been debated and decided in favor of inclusion.
Pink-thunderbolt (
talk)
19:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
More information has been printed in reliable sources, so I am incorporating the references. Pink-thunderbolt ( talk) 22:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
How can any of this be listed as "Affair" if sourced from tabloids and is being trumped by the Sister who states that there is a contract from Kate to Jon, stating that Jon must oblige his duties to continue filming and promoting the show/the Gosling 10 or whatever their LLC is. Plus in stated contract was the ability for Jon to date whomever he chooses and the marriage is over. More so could any of this be listed under any title of Affair when if such a contract exist and is worded in that, that Jon can date whomever he chooses, does it not become an "Open Marriage" and therefor an affair is not really applicable?-- here is the link to source? http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/05/exclusive-new-interview-jon-kates-secret-marriage-contract —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.135.2 ( talk) 20:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You cannot state that "he began having an affair with a woman named Deanna Hummel in January of that year" - you have to state it as rumour, since the rumours are verified, but the facts aren't. There are clear photos of Jon in situations that illustrate his poor choices; most likely he had an affair or was close to consummating it. But there is no reliable evidence that they actually did consummate it. Deanna's brother is a source, but he is angry at her and is an unsavourable character (Canadian spelling), so we can't rely on him. And really, even if they signed up for being in a fishbowl when they started their reality TV show, I don't think it's fair for the scrutiny to be as intense as it is. I hope it doesn't last too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.48.224 ( talk) 22:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? Where does it confirm there was an affair? From all that's been provided that's what the tabloid states as a rumor. There is no evidence, nor correlation even to promote such a theory. Jon went to a party, and got a ride with a female friend. Please tell me where this is stated differently. Wikipedia should hold itself up to higher standards than wild blind speculation. -- 76.166.97.51 ( talk) 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, if I'm not mistaken, Joel was born before Leah. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.124.31 ( talk) 19:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm almost positive the birth order listed is correct. Jon and Kate have said several times on the show that Leah is the youngest girl, but Joel is the "youngest youngest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.210.130 ( talk) 18:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Ive seen Jon and Kate try to be excellent parents who love and are devoted to their children. I'd like to see more of them respecting one another and be just as devoted to one another, too. From my own observations, Kate has issues with being respectful to her husband, and giving herself honor by honoring him. And Jon sits back and takes any kind of insult as if it were just any old thing, and it chips away from his character. After having been married for nearing 25 years, and having 7 children ourselves, I understand the pressures and stresses of life, but you cannot disrespect each other in such a way and have a healthy marriage for very long. I certainly wish them the best though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.130.182 ( talk) 01:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
ratings: The season five premiere of Jon and Kate Plus 8 delivered the best ratings in the series' history Monday, drawing 9.8 million total viewers, including 4.3 million in TLC’s target W18-49 demo.
The premiere also delivered the highest ratings in TLC history among W18-34 (9.1), M18-34 (3.6), and P18-34 (6.3).
The previous record holder was the season four finale, which aired March 23, 2009 and drew just over 4.6 million viewers, including 2.07 million W18-49. The premiere ratings were higher than anything on television Monday night, beating all of the broadcast networks. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.105.27 ( talk) 12:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
well you obviously are mistaken because Joel is the last! The kids' birth order is Cara, Mady, Alexis, Hannah, Aaden,Collin,Leah, and Joel... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.134.72 ( talk) 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a growing number of people who are concerned that the children in this family are being used as a source of income.
The realization that children who are featured in Reality TV Programs are not afforded the same protection as child actors, has ignited a push to bring forward those protections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.2.85 ( talk) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It is also broadcast in Canada, dubbed in French, on Canal Vie, as "8 à la maison". See (in French) http://www.canalvie.com/emission/8-a-la-maison/
The infobox can be updated.
70.29.208.129 ( talk) 09:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think this would be a controversial addition to the article, but since User:R7604 has reverted my edit twice... Is there a reason why we can't have a See Also section that links to the Kate Gosselin page? Cactusjump ( talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the edit was reverted again by User:R7604. I don't want to edit war, so if anyone else has an opinion, they can put it here. Cactusjump ( talk) 21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Per Wikipedia:Layout re. "See Also" sections: "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Cactusjump ( talk) 21:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
← From WP:3O - The purpose of the See also section is to link to related topics which are not already discussed in the article. If it is not restricted, in many articles it quickly balloons past the point of being useful to the reader. A better option is to add the |starring= parameter to the {{ Infobox television}} at the start of the article; I note that there is also a |list_episodes parameter which could be added. If there is a whole family of related articles, it might also be useful to add a navigation box sorting these to the bottom of each article in the family. An example using both of these solutions may be seen at Squidbillies. If you would like me to set up either or both, please ping my talkpage. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
so, this article says something about there being six sacs with seven embryos when kate was pregnant with the sextuplets. Are any of the sextuplets indentical? and I'm assuming one of the babies died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.44.145 ( talk) 16:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Please refer to release dates of show. Following certain regions (bottom part of the article) its not Cananda but CANADA if you are referring to the country pretty bad typo
Youre Welcome...I dont see anything else so far
In the future, if you see a typo, just FIX IT. Discussion is not necessary. DFS ( talk) 12:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've seen this changed every day at least three or four times. Can anyone verify if they purchased or adopted the dogs (with a source) so that it's not edited hourly? Cactusjump ( talk) 19:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to see we tamed fire, conquered space and the atom, and invented Wikipedia so we can talk, verifiably, about someone's dogs. Drmies ( talk) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20286254,00.html
This is not a confirmation but an early "heads up" that it was anounced here first. Whether they announce it on the show or not, its being reported so I'm adding it to this talk page. Mwarriorjsj7 ( talk) 00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
http://brokencontrollers.com/jon-and-kate-plus-8-not-plus-divorce-t1651458.php -- M42380 ( talk) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
further, the show (and the cited sources) specifically said that the legal filings were to disolve the marriage. so you are incorrect. we DO know what the filings were for (according to verifiable, reliable sources). you're fighting a losing (and incorrect) fight here, buddy. Wikiwikikid ( talk) 16:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) http://www.nj.com/entertainment/celebrities/index.ssf/2009/06/jon_and_kate_plus_eight_produc.html Production on the show has been suspended C3pjo ( talk) 15:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Eh. It says, "The show has been canceled." Not the right wording lol Mwarriorjsj7 ( talk) 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Typo error under section "Production"Under "Production" in the second sentence of it says "Jon & Kate Plus Ei8ht is filmed three days...". 'Ei8ht' needs to be changed to '8'.
I do not see any problem with the neutrality of this article, so I will remove the tag for that. Am I completely blind? Bearian ( talk) 15:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The 'family history' section goes from birth of the sextuplets right to 2009 allegations of infidelity. Is there really nothing to say about the period in between, like, when they decided to appear on a reality show? DJ Clayworth ( talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned this on the Kate talk page, but is there a reason why Jon's accusations of an affair are included, but not Kate's? Both have been vehemently denied, yet only Jon's extra-marital allegations remain here. I believe to be fair, both allegations should be included, or none at all. Cactusjump ( talk) 23:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
So if you are going to include one, I guess you should include the other.
the only thing is that you can not go by what a brother says. he has been to jail and has had his own isssues. he is probably just doing this for the publicity. now the thing is that kate, well they have no prof of her cheating where jon they do. the main thing that was out there was the other women sunbathig on there front yard while kate was away. that is just to much to be friends. now for kate just because there is a body graund in the picture does not mean that they hace cheated. please just get over it about kate jon did the wrong thingh and there is proof.-- Beachbabe0517 ( talk) 20:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(undent)Since no one has put forth a valid argument since June 25, I added a short couple sentences about Kate being accused of cheating, as well as her denial -- both cited. If people feel this should be erased, then Jon's accusations of cheating should also be erased to give equal weight to the issues. Cactusjump ( talk) 18:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
"is a eality television"
This is missing the "r" in "reality"
-- Out There Live ( talk) 01:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Since the next episode that airs June 29 is a recap show, doesn't that make them on hiatus from filming from now until August? Cactusjump ( talk) 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Under family history, it currently says "The couple have denied these allegations" but shouldn't it say "The couple has denied..."? It is referring to a singular group. Kylel2005 ( talk) 14:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The DVD multimedia chart near the bottom of the page is incorrect. The release dates were the same in the US and Canada, with certain States and Provinces getting it later. (Alaska, Hawaii, Northwest Territories) Having (Canada) after a list of 3 dates is misleading and just plain unnecessary. Also it's not referenced, and the link to the DVD regions have been removed. I tried to change it a few times and was verbally attacked by the chart creator. lol
If it's unreferenced and incorrect it should be changed to show just the one date for Region 1. Any comments/concerns ? -- PhilthyBear ( talk) 17:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Because Canada has NOT gotten the DVDs on the same dates as the U.S. This can be confirmed at Amazon.ca or TVShowsOnDVD. If you look at other shows, you'll see that they list two dates for the same region but the second one has a different country listed in brackets.
Also why do you need to link Region 1 or any regions for that matter? People know the regions the DVDs are meant for by now. If not then they've been living under a rock. It's not necessary, to state the obvious. R7604 ( talk) 03:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you ever stop to think that Amazon doesnt receive stock of every DVD, Book, CD on its original release date ? The release date is probably the day it was released on Amazon for purchase. The three dates needs to be changed.
And I would say most people are unaware that their are "DVD regions". Deleting the link is counter productive--
PhilthyBear (
talk)
23:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't get my message to your reply. Check Amazon.ca, check Chapters/Indigo, both of these will say the same thing, Canada got the DVDs on a different date!! Chapter/Indigo has them in store too. The dates are correct for Canada!!
If "most people" are "unaware" of the DVD region codes, by now, then they have apparently been living under that rock. I refuse treat people like they have nothing between their ears. DVDs have been around for a while now, (late 90s) and everyone knows which region is which. If not, they can look it up, that's what Google was created for. A person using the internet and even this site, definately knows the regions codes as far as DVDs are concerned.
Not to mention the fact that when I first created the "chart" for the DVDs, no one was concerned with either the dates (which are correct) or linking the codes. So why after almsot three months, is there a sudden need to change everything?
Here's the other thing, Season 4, Volume 2, does have the same release date in all of North America. If Canada was supposedly getting the previous DVDs at the same time as the U.S. then why is Amazon.ca & Chatpers/Indigo are listing a matching date only now? Btw it's not "some Provinces" that were getting a different date, it was all of Canada. Why on earth you would think some Provinces are different from others, I don't know. As for the U.S., you'd have to ask someone from Alaska and Hawaii, for proof about those two States, since, PhilthyBear, you and I both live in Canada. R7604 ( talk) 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Once again I think online stores get their stock after it goes on sale. But even if ALL of Canada gets it 1 month later than the US, putting (canada) after 3 dates is confusing and it crowds the chart. And the "Region 1" link should be restored. -- PhilthyBear ( talk) 12:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, when sourcing stuff, try to avoid articles from MSNBC. They take them off of their site so fast that at least one of the sources we were using was already defunct, despite the fact that these allegations surfaced a mere two months ago. If you can, please try to find a duplicate article on another site and use that instead. Also, if there are any other MSNBC articles being used as sources, please help find replacements for them. Thanks! -- 13 2 00:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused...Why would there be a question on the article's neutrality placed on the Criticism section? I believe it to be written neutrally, as it presents the criticism that exists, and how Jon and Kate and TLC have responded. The link from the tag goes to a short essay that basically says "Sometimes you should have a Criticism section, and sometimes not." So then what's the point of the tag? Cactusjump ( talk) 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Logo of the show indicates that the number is spelled out ("Eight") and not the single digit value ("8"). Article is locked so I can't edit it and it needs to be edited numerous times throughout the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoudFlatulence ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I also wondered why it's not "Ei8ht" since that's how I see it on TLC's site. http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/jon-and-kate/jon-and-kate.html I think it should be words not the number except to replace the letter "g". R7604 ( talk) 17:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that a certain editor ( R7604) has some sort of dispute over adding the kids ages to the chart. Why shouldn't this be allowed? 18 Kids and Counting (AKA Duggar Family) has all of their kids listed, and they have two sets of twins as well. Not everyone actually knows the kids birthdays, and I think that it would be great to just keep that in the article. By the way, s/he said that the sextuplets had turned one in the first season; nope, they turned three (they were born 2004; first season debuted 2007). ★ Dasani★ 00:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've protected the page. Please use the talk page to get consensus for changes. Tom Harrison Talk 13:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
With a clear consensus below for the later version here, the page is unlocked. Tom Harrison Talk 00:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Besides the points raised by Philthybear in the above section, here are the reasons that I keep reverting R7604's channges:
As you can see, my issues with it have nothing to do with the actual information (though I think someone may have brought it up elsewhere). My issues are 100% consensus, internal link, and style. It'd be nice, R, if you'd stop making assumptions about why I, and others, are changing this. -- 13 2 13:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope you're happy, my choice was to have accurate information but apparently not. Now all that is listed is an online release date through Discover's website. I did say I would delete it since no one liked all of my work to look up the dates and later on create a table for them. Interesting how three months later, after I created the table, everyone jumps in and say I'm wrong and useless. Nice to know I'm apprecidated and no I'm not leaving this site, just because you people don't like my work I did for the DVDs. I'd like to know why no one else bother putting the information for release dates or a table before me? R7604 ( talk) 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I will say this for the last time (I hope) and maybe you people will both read it and understand. Canada did NOT get the DVDs for Seasons 1-3 or S4V1 at the same time as the U.S. If we did, I wouldn't have been looking around for it. It happens, sometimes, that Canadians get DVDs for some shows at a later date. Want irony? Degrassi: TNG is a Canadian show and the first couple of seasons were released later on in Canada.
Another thing, other shows have more then one release date for the same reason, so there's no reason why this show can't too. What shows? Gossip Girl for one.... Look around I've seen a few shows that same thing as I do.
And what's with putting back all the old references I've removed over the past year?
One last thing, since you don't read my notes when editing, go to Amazon UK and type in Jon & Kate Plus Eight, there you'll find 'ALL information, like I did. I don't know why no one else did that instead of putting "citation needed". R7604 ( talk) 20:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Now there seems to be an issue with using regions or countries for release. I think since DVD's are generally released per region (although some countries may have a delayed release) we really should be using Regions. And it wouldn't be incorrect to have only one release for each region; taking a leaf from WP:FilmRelease, the first release date for each region should be noted. BOVINEBOY2008 16:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Get your spelling straight. There is NO apostraphe in DVDs. It's plural "s" not possesive "s". Why the heck are you against mentiong that the dates you have for the U.S. and U.K. only and at that, why delete the Season 4, Volume 1 date for the U.K.?
Another thing, why bring up Amazon? I'ved used other Canadian sites and the fact that these DVDs were not available in Canada.
I still have not received a straight answer to any of my questions. I originally added three dates to this table for Region 1 and for the past month everyone's against it. Why now? Why remove any mention about Canada? Why is it other shows have two release dates for the same region, yet everyone objects to it being this why for this show?
Instead I get a lot of the same useless answers about the way things are done, the rules etc.... Does anyone give or get straight answers around here? R7604 ( talk) 04:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well Thirteen two; what's your for UK dates? Interesting how Amazon UK is good enough for previous releases but not for Season 4, Volume 1. I never used it for Canada, just the UK and I thought I was discussing a mention about Canada but apparently not.
The only "straight answers" I've been given is basically that you guys think the U.S. should be the only country listed. Nice. You could block me but I'll just keep coming back until Canada is mentioned somewhere, somehow. I created the table but you guys act like you did.
I can't seem to get any of you to compromise, at all. Pretty sad. R7604 ( talk) 15:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Per the discussion at the top, I've archived everything that was stale or resolved (essentially anything without replies in July). This page is still really long though. :( -- 13 2 20:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Since John and Kate have decided to move, and both no longer stay exclusively in PA, should their new addresses be added to their location? Jon is in NY and recently Kate decided to move next door to me in MD. Mwarriorjsj7 ( talk) 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Please don't get ahead of ourselves here, all right? Yes, Jon isn't going to star on the show and yes, the show's title is changing. However, this will all be occurring in the future. Until the first episode airs with the new name, this article has to stay at this location. We also need to continue using any verbs connected with Jon's appearance on the show in present tense until the change actually takes place as he is still currently a star on the show and not a guest...not yet anyway. Thanks. -- 13 2 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose that we do not use wording such as "and soon to be Kate Plus Eight" in the lead sentence or, for that matter, anywhere in the article. The article should absolutely make mention of the fact that TLC announced the name change but there is enough ongoing litigation that it cannot be known for certain that a show titled Kate Plus Eight will ever be filmed and broadcast. TLC has publicly announced that filming has been suspended "pending further conversations between both parents". The wording in the article should be limited to the announcement of a name change and the explanation of its surrounding factors. This should be included in the lead paragraph but not the lead sentence. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
{{Editprotected}} The line:
| show_name_2 = '''Jon & Kate Plus 8'''
needs to be removed from the infobox, as it is identical to the show_name
parameter. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
02:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Please fix the end of the first section, where there is a run-on sentence. Specifically, "The producers are in talks with the parents" should be its own sentence, not a phrase jammed onto the end of the preceding one. |MSK ( talk) 14:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please update the episode count to 109 and continue to do so until the page is unlocked again, every week? Thanks. TH43 ( talk) 05:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
People article, Another People article, this one picked up by CNN. Time to call it? — NRen2k5( TALK), 05:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Given that the page is being bombarded with insertions of series ending, I think this needs to be said. First of all, nothing about the series ending can be included without a cited reliable source. Gossip sites are not reliable.
Which brings me to my second point. We need a source straight from the horse's mouth. In other words, we need a cited source, from TLC, saying the series is ending. Why? Because all of these tabloids are releasing information that directly goes against what TLC themselves have said (that is, suspending filming, talking it over with the parents and dealing with the court stuff, running a few specials in the meantime, and possibly picking up filming at a later date).
On a similar note. If they do end the series, the intro sentence will never be "Jon & Kate Plus 8 was..." and will, instead, always be "Jon & Kate Plus 8 is..." per WP:MOSTV. The reason this is is because the series has not ceased to exist, new episodes just aren't being made. It doesn't just disappear and since it's not a living thing, it can't die. Thanks for your cooperation through this chaotic time. -- 13 2 23:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
There was a commercial on TLC after the episode last week (Nov. 16th) that said the next episode would be the series finale. This article says the finale was announced on the 20th, but it was actually announced before this date. 4.167.171.241 ( talk) 09:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Some Gosselin-related Wikipedia articles erroneously had the word "Surviving" in the title of the second hour-long special, but it's simply titled "Sextuplets and Twins: One Year Later" according to production company Figure 8 Films' official site (it's on the sidebar) and, more importantly, the show's title card (it's at 1:43). I've corrected it on this article, as well as on Jon and Kate's articles. - sesu PRIME 01:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Description | Title | Redundant clarification! |
---|---|---|
1st hour-long special | Surviving Sextuplets and Twins | DOES contain "Surviving" |
2nd hour-long special | Sextuplets and Twins: One Year Later | does NOT contain "Surviving" |
Whats does the divorce paragraph have to do with the show? There a huge section of it yet it has nothing to do with the show. Neither does the show mention it. The show and their personal life are separate. If the show doesn't mention it, its useless to write a full paragraph on their divorce instead of just adding a brief overview in the Family History. You could add the show was canceled because of the fallout of Jon's infidelity, but their divorce came after the cancellation.
Being an obsessive fan of Jon and Kate plus 8 doesn't mean you write useless stuff on their pages. Example: "TLC announced that it would like to do "a series of specials" if the new series does not go into production"
That's real great news to you fans but useless when it comes to wiki seeing as this isn't an update forum. Unless you want to add, "TLC has done a show and a series of specials on the Gosselin family" there's no relevance to "TLC announced that it would like to do "a series of specials" if the new series does not go into production."
Also, the front page needs cleaning up. Example: "The show originally aired on Discovery Health, but then aired on TLC for Seasons 3-5."
"and then" would be a better fit. And the show never aired on Discovery Health. They had 2 specials on the Gosselin family. The show began on TLC.
Criticism section need updating(if you haven't noticed the label on it since July). Besides the non-neutral viewpoint, you don't use present tense when dealing with what happened in the past. Ex: "Kate defends her position that the children are happy and healthy, and not in any danger. In addition, Jon has stated that they are "in talks" regarding ensuring the children's happiness..."
The first paragraph should be explained as a statement given by the state as an answer to address the criticism, instead of just adding it as if to explain away the criticism and defend the Gosselin's. Mwarriorjsj7 ( talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL, I didn't realize this was a very, very old message and the user is banned/blocked. Oops. Heh. :P -- 13 2 05:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the show being staged? There have been several reports, and reliable ones at that: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30932161 seems like maybe fans or TLC is working to keep this info out of the article 207.81.141.208 ( talk) 18:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the last episode of Kate Plus Eight will be on September 12th, 2011.
According to people.com, the series was cancelled.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20518349,00.html
-- 99.108.248.29 ( talk) 19:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)HypoAllergenicJin
It seems to me (and I'm sure there are reasons some would disagree), that the show having been cancelled, that this article should be moved back to Jon & Kate Plus 8. Why? Because it aired far longer, and had far more episodes, with the former title, and thus is likely how most people think of the show. 98.71.223.130 ( talk) 12:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Kate Plus 8 → Jon & Kate Plus 8 – Jon & Kate Plus 8 aired five seasons, while Kate Plus 8 aired two. The former title is much more notable than the latter, as it was the name the series used for the majority of its run. 68DANNY2 ( talk) 17:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The article, Kate Plus Eight: Sextuplets Turn 10 should redirect here or not? For knowing about the article and its last situation, you can go through this link [2]. I have came here only after I followed a request from other editor, who had posted a request for deletion on my talk page, as well as the talk page of Materialscientist. OccultZone ( Talk) 02:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Number 5 7 17:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Jon & Kate Plus 8 → Kate Plus 8 – This is the current title of the series. As seen above, this move was rejected previously, but consensus can change; a similar situation happened here. --Relisted. — Amakuru ( talk) 12:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
{{ Jon & Kate Plus 8}} has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Kate Plus 8. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Kate Plus 8. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The series completed its run five years ago. It's remembered mostly for its earliest seasons, in which it was most popular, and which it was known as Jon & Kate Plus 8. This decision is based on Google News results, in relation to the sextuplets' 18th birthday. -- Zanimum ( talk) 01:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)